BILL ANALYSIS AB 1770 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 27, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 1770 (Galgiani) - As Amended: February 9, 2010 As Proposed to be Amended SUBJECT : STANISLAUS COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN STANISLAUS COUNTY, SHOULD SPECIFIED FEES BE RAISED TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS IN THAT COUNTY, VERY SIMILAR TO A BILL OF STATEWIDE APPLICATION THAT PASSED THIS COMMITTEE LAST MONTH? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SYNOPSIS Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized, on a pilot basis, four counties to increase fees for marriage licenses and for marriage and birth certificates and death records to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs. Many of these programs have been highly successful in combating domestic violence and the Legislature has, after reviewing program reports required as a condition of the pilots, made the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley permanent. This Committee recently passed AB 1883 (Evans), which expands these successful programs statewide by giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to four dollars in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and services to victims and their families. This bill allows the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors to create a very similar program in that county. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes the bill, arguing that the fee increase sought by the bill is, in actuality, a tax. The California Supreme Court in Sinclair Paints v. Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866 set forth a two-prong test to determine whether a particular increase in AB 1770 Page 2 revenue is a fee or a tax. Under that test a fee cannot exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services necessary for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for an unrelated revenue purpose. The author counters that the fee proposed by this bill satisfies both prongs of the fee test. SUMMARY : Authorizes, as a pilot program, the Stanislaus County Boards of Supervisors to increase specified fees to fund domestic violence prevention programs and direct services. Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase the fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates, and death records by up to $2, with further increases permitted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as specified. Directs that the fees be deposited into a special fund to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. 2)Requires that the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, if it elects to increase fees as specified in this bill, must submit to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees a report by July 1, 2014 regarding the funds received, the activities funded and the outcomes of those activities. 3)Sunsets the program on January 1, 2016. EXISTING LAW : 1)Authorizes the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and the Berkeley City Council, upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase the fees for marriage licenses and confidential marriage licenses, as well as certified copies of marriage, birth, and death certificates, by up to $2, with further increases permitted on an annual basis, based on the CPI. Directs that the fees be deposited into a special fund to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. (Government Code Section 26840.10; Health and Safety Code Sections 103627, 103627.5; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.) 2)Authorizes a $4 fee (subject to CPI increases) for certified AB 1770 Page 3 copies of marriage certificates, birth certificates, and death records to provide funding for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts in the Contra Costa County. (Health and Safety Code Section 103626; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18308.) 3)Authorizes the Solano County Board of Supervisors, upon making findings and declarations of the need for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up to $2, until January 1, 2011. (Government Code Section 26840.11; Health and Safety Code Section 103628; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.5.) 4)Authorizes the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, upon making findings and declarations of the need for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal death records, and death records by up to $2, until January 1, 2015. (Government Code Section 26840.12; Health and Safety Code Section 103628.2; Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.6.) COMMENTS : Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized, on a pilot basis, four counties to increase fees for marriage licenses and for marriage, birth and death certificates to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs. These programs have been highly successful and have led to the creation of a family justice center in Alameda County, a youth intervention program in the City of Berkeley and significantly greater coordination of services in Contra Costa County. As a result of their successes, the Legislature, after reviewing program reports required as a condition of the pilots, made the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley permanent. This Committee recently passed AB 1883 (Evans), which expands these successful programs statewide by giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to $4 in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention and AB 1770 Page 4 intervention, as well as services to victims and their families. This bill, sponsored by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, seeks to allow Stanislaus County to operate a similar program by giving the Board of Supervisors, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and death records by up to $2 in order to fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention. The fee would increase annually based on the CPI. In support of the bill, the author writes: Stanislaus County experiences a 25% greater rate of domestic violence calls than the state average and a 50% higher rate for child welfare referrals. In spite of the efforts of law enforcement and the judicial system, violent crimes in Stanislaus County continue to escalate. More than 2,000 elders reported being abused and more than 3,000 domestic violence calls were received by law enforcement in 2009. In addition, more than 150 cases of sexual assault were reported and over 10,000 cases were referred through child welfare services annually . . . . The Stanislaus Family Justice Center (SFJC) will offer a dynamic and proven new approach by housing a multidisciplinary team of professionals under one roof. This approach will reduce the number of times victims have to retell their story and will greatly decrease the number of places they have to travel to for assistance. This approach is similar to Family Justice Centers operating in San Diego, Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Devastating Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and Families : Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and public health problem most often perpetrated against women. (Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice (2001).) Prevalence of domestic violence at the national level ranges from 960,000 to three million women each year who are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. While the numbers are staggering, they only include those cases of reported domestic violence. In fact, according AB 1770 Page 5 to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31% of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (Health Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's Health, The Commonwealth Fund (May 1999).) Domestic violence continues to be a significant problem in California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task Force on Domestic Violence reported that: The health consequences of physical and psychological domestic violence can be significant and long lasting, for both victims and their children. . . . A study by the California Department of Health Services of women's health issues found that nearly six percent of women, or about 620,000 women per year, experienced violence or physical abuse by their intimate partners. Women living in households where children are present experienced domestic violence at much higher rates than women living in households without children: domestic violence occurred in more than 436,000 households per year in which children were present, potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children to violence in their homes every year. (Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence, Keeping the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability (June 2005) (footnotes omitted).) That report discovered numerous significant and troubling problems in the implementation of statutory directives aimed at preventing domestic violence, including failing to enter restraining orders into CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and failing to ensure that batterers attend mandated treatment programs. Successful Pilots Programs to Combat Domestic Violence Made Permanent : While initially begun as pilots, the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa County and the City of Berkeley have now been made permanent. In support of making those programs permanent, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors wrote that the funds from the fee increases have played a vital role in funding the coordination costs and have "changed the way systems and service providers are delivering essential and critical AB 1770 Page 6 services to victims of domestic violence and their children." The Board noted that domestic violence deaths in the county dropped from 26 in 2001 to 3 in 2006, with a goal of zero deaths going forward. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office agreed, stating that as a result of the Family Justice Center in the county built, in part, with funds provided by the fee increases, "there is a new (or re-newed) confidence on the part of Victims that the legal systems work for them and that there are resources and service providers who will work together to protect, support and empower them and their children to have lives free of interpersonal violence." The Berkeley City Council told the Legislature that it uses these funds for a youth intervention in the schools to promote healthy relationships and prevent domestic violence, modeled after "extremely successful peer health educator programs." As a result of the increased funding, Contra Costa County has been able to, among other things, increase funding for a coordinated system and for individual agencies; increase systemwide accountability; increase batterer accountability; and increase protections for victims and children. Prior to the fee increase, individual agencies had not worked together smoothly, but the funding increase has permitted the county to operate an efficient and coordinated system. This Bill Will Allow Stanislaus County to Fund a Family Justice Center : This bill essentially establishes the same program in Stanislaus County that began in Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano and Sonoma Counties. Stanislaus County intends to use the fees generated as the result of this bill to fund a family justice center, similar to the one operated in Alameda County. Is This Bill Necessary? In prior years, individual counties have sought individual approval for fee increases to fund domestic violence prevention efforts. Rather than continue this piecemeal approach, this Committee recently passed out AB 1883 (Evans), which allows all county boards of supervisors, upon making specified findings and declaration on the need for more funding to combat domestic violence, to increase the fees for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates, and death records by up to $4. If a county elects to increase these fees, half of the fees must be used for governmental oversight and AB 1770 Page 7 coordination of domestic violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts. The other half of the fees must be provided to nonprofit, community-based organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and their families, including but not limited to organizations that serve underserved communities. In order to ensure the funding for community-based organizations is used as effectively as possible, the bill requires that this funding be awarded to local programs through a competitive process that begins with a request for proposals. Given AB 1883, it may be that this bill is not entirely necessary. Assuming AB 1883 becomes law, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors could, under that bill, approve a fee increase of up to $4 (which could easily be limited to the $2 fee increase sought by this bill) to fund domestic violence prevention and intervention efforts, including a family justice center, although half of the funds would have to be awarded to community-based organizations through a competitive grant process not contemplated by this bill. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors writes that the "existence and sustainability of the Family Justice Center fulfills the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors' priority of "A safe community, effective partnerships and efficient delivery of public services." According to the Board, the county has already secured $600,000 from private sources, is requesting $300,000 in federal funding and believes that the fee increase in this bill is necessary to partially fund the operations and services of the family justice center. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association writes: As currently drafted, AB 1770 would authorize local government violations of the California Constitution. [The fee increase in this bill] is a tax for a special purpose and therefore must require a two-thirds vote by local voters to be enacted. This extension cannot be termed a fee since there is absolutely no nexus between certified certificates of the type mentioned in this bill, and domestic violence prevention. AB 1770 Page 8 While a tax does indeed require a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature or of local voters, a bona fide regulatory fee does not. The California Supreme Court laid out the distinction between a fee and a tax in Sinclair Paints v. Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866. In that case, the Court found that a fee assessed on paint manufacturers under the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 was properly a bona fide regulatory fee designed to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning and not a tax. In order to be classified as a regulatory fee and not a tax, the court held that the fee must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services necessary for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied for an unrelated revenue purpose. Following the first prong of the Sinclair Paints test, this bill provides that fees from the program can only be used for specific domestic violence programs. Thus, the fees cannot exceed the reasonable cost of the services for which the fee is charged. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the fees charged are in excess of the cost of providing the specified services. Under the second prong of the Sinclair Paints test, the fee must be levied for a related purpose. Here, the nexus between the fee and the services it funds is that domestic violence, which occurs in families and cuts across all economic, educational, age and ethnic lines, can result in injury or death of the victims and is learned generationally. Thus domestic violence involves marriages, births, and deaths. In support of a similar bill for Alameda and Solano Counties, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office very articulately stated the nexus between the fee increase and domestic violence in a memo to the Governor's Office: Without stopping violence in the home, we will never stop violence in the community. Without stopping violence in the community, all citizens are potential victims of that violence. The nexus between the special fee increase allowed under [the original legislation] and marriage-birth-fetal death and death certified certificates cannot be ignored. Statistically, the most lethal times for a victim of domestic violence, and children who witness that violence, a) is when she is separating from the batterer; b) becomes pregnant; AB 1770 Page 9 c) after children are born; and d) after getting married. The fees in this bill, and the specific uses of those fees, are also identical, or nearly identical, to those for the programs in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that the Legislature and the Governor have made permanent. (SB 968 (Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006; AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009.) The County Recorders Association of California opposes the bill as well, writing that the fee in the bill "places [an] undue additional financial burden on California citizens who purchase certain vital record. . . . The fee will not directly benefit the individual purchasing the certified record." Pending Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight Funding Programs : AB 1883 (Evans) allows for the establishment of similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot programs in all counties. AB 2348 (Yamada) establishes a similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Yolo County. Given AB 1883, the author has decided not to move the bill at this time. SB 1222 (Wolk) extends the existing pilot program in Solano County until January 1, 2014. Previous Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight and Coordination Funding Programs : SB 425 (Torlakson), Chap. 90, Stats. 2001, established a similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Contra Costa County. SB 968 (Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006, repealed the sunset date, making Contra Costa's program effective indefinitely. AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats. 2004, established the pilot programs in Alameda County and Solano County. AB 1712 (Hancock), Chap. 545, Stats. 2005, authorized the City of Berkeley, within Alameda County, to also participate in the pilot program. AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009, repealed the sunset date, making Alameda's and Berkeley's programs effective indefinitely. SB 635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009, established a similar pilot program for Sonoma County and extended the sunset for the pilot program in Solano County until 2011. AB 1770 Page 10 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Opposition County Recorders Association of California Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334